Gujarat High Court
Prashant Shankarlal Oza vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 854
of 2017
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 855 of 2017
==========================================================
PRASHANT SHANKARLAL OZA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK SONI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. As Both the revision applications being Criminal Revision Application No. 854 of 2017 and Criminal Revision Application No. 855 of 2017 pertains to one single offence and common First Information Report (FIR), both the applications are taken together for hearing.
2. Heard Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
3. The present revision applications are preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate Court') dated 28.8.2017, which inter alia confirmed the judgment and order dated 9.10.2015 passed by the 10th Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana in Criminal Summary Case No. 478 of 2012 and Criminal Summary Case No. 479 of 2012. As the issue is common in both the revision applications, the facts of Criminal Revision Application No. 854 of 2017 are taken on record.
4. The brief facts which has led to the filing of the revision applications is that it was the case of the prosecution that on 11.6.2011, the applicants were at a trauma centre of Mehsana Civil Hospital. The applicants misbehaved with Doctor Kamlesh of the Civil Hospital and at the time of scuffle, the applicant was in drunken condition. Pursuant to the incident, investigation came to Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined be initiated and First Information Report and thereafter Criminal Summary Case No. 478 of 2012 was tried against the revisionist applicant. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, by way of order dated 9.10.2015 was pleased to convict the applicant under Section 66(1)(b) and Section 85(1)(3) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and was pleased to undergo sentence of 30 days and fine of Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be preferred which was dismissed by way of order dated 5.11.2015, which has resulted into filing of present revision application.
5. Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the applicant states at bar that the incident is of the year 2011 and there are no other antecedents except the fact that for the same offence, there was another complaint by Doctor, which inter alia resulted into acquittal granted to the revision applicant. In view of the same, Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the applicant shall pass appropriate order. Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
6. Per contra, Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that as per report of Mehsana 'A' Division Police Station, there are no other antecedent against the present applicants. Apart from the said offence, a separate offence was registered for having altercation with the Doctor and even in that offence, the applicants have been acquitted. Apart from that, there are no antecedent against the present revisionist- applicants.
7. It is true that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has limited jurisdiction which can be exercisable if the court below has committed a manifest illegality or the findings are perverse and based on misreading of evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity with the impugned judgment and order. However, Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct, with regard to his age, character as well as the incident and antecedents, then the underlying Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined object for releasing the offender after conviction is to be dealt with leniently in respect of his sentence, is in tune with the reformative theory of punishment. It is also stated by learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of instructions received that there are no antecedents of the applicants.
8. Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with releasing an offender on probation of good conduct or after admonition the Section says that when any person not under 21 years of age is convicted for an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of seven years of less or when any person under 21 years of age or any woman is convicted of an offence not punishable death or imprisonment for life and no previous conviction was proved against the offender, the Court may having regard to the age of the offender, his character and his antecedents as well as the circumstances in which the offence is committed, finds it expedient that the offender should be released on probation of good conduct, the Court may so direct Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined instead of requiring him at once to suffer the punishment. As per sub-section (4) of Section 360, these powers can be exercised by the appellate court or by the High Court while exercising powers of revision. Similarly in Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4 thereof provides that the Court may release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. According to Section 4(1), when any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not publishable with death or imprisonment of life, the Court may release him on probation of good conduct. Sub- section (2) provides that while granting the benefit, the Court shall take into account Report, if any, of the Probation Officer concerned in relation to the case. The underlying object by the provision for releasing the offender on probation of good conduct after his conviction and deal with him leniently in respect of the sentence, is in tune with the reformative theory of punishment. The object is to provide an opportunity to the offender to reform himself. The courts have held that while sentencing a person, the sentencing court must apply its Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined mind and application of Section 360 of the Code or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act should be allowed a fair play. In Savaldas Ghumamal Vs State of Gujarat being Criminal Appeal No.361 of 1998 decided on 04.04.2011, this Court granted benefit of probation of good conduct to the appellant of that case who was convicted and sentenced for the offence under the Essential Commodities Act, by taking into consideration amongst other facts the lapse of 13 years in the proceedings. The Court observed that in each case the Court should not be enthusiastic to see that each order of punishment should be carried out just for the sake of deterrence and held that the trial court ought to have given the offender the benefit of probation.
9. In view of the above, looking to the nature of offence and the duration of offence, it would be in the fitness of things to grant benefit of probation to the applicants. Therefore, instead of requiring the applicants to undergo the sentence of imprisonment at once, he is directed to be released on probation of good conduct on execution of Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/854/2017 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined bond of Rs.10,000/- for good behaviour for a period of two years. The applicants shall further furnish surety of equivalent amount in addition to the personal bond as above. The applicants shall remain in supervision of good conduct for the said period and the sentence imposed on the applicants as per the order impugned shall remain suspended during that period. It is further directed that in the event of any breach, the applicants shall appear and shall be required to receive the said sentence during such period as may be directed by the Court.
10. With the aforesaid directions and providence as above, the present Criminal Revision Applications succeed and same is made allowed to the aforementioned extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAJ GEORGE Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Wed Apr 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 16 21:20:42 IST 2025